User talk:Foxtrot12/UNSC Centurions
In response by bullet points. *The involvement for the air force was a big debating point for myself. I will not deny air and space combat would be the heart of the air force. But things like paratroopers are also geared towards the air force as well. And when you have base infantry it is sensible to perfect with special forces. As well the air force is the most untapped branch of the UNSC canon wise pretty much all we know about it is the fact it exists. So it made the most sense to put the centurions here. Because odds are likely a non-canon dispute would also exist if they were marine corps or army. *As for ground experience forces. This page and all needed related articles have an estimated finish date of december 2011. Remember the said required units that centurions must come from? They will get pages. *Weapon wise. Everyone wants to make their own guns that their soldiers used. That includes me. And I have to ask if the said gun was good as everyone makes it then why were they not in use with other branches and not seen in games. If you make the blank-1 assault rifle and it was used by the 23rd special forces and was superior to the MA5 series then why would the marine corps not also use the blank-1? By making it exclusive to centurions then it is reasonable to make it exist. Now as for budget review. Rest assured when further expansion comes they will be proven to have reasonable ground experience. Remember the air force is used as it makes little sense why they would be marine corps or army. *The phonetics. I knew this was coming. I worded it terribly. It was my spin on the alphabet made to give them more individuality and uniqueness. They mainly worked solo. And yeah I did word it pretty damn bad. I know how phonetics work but replacing it with my own allows just more creativity. Units know both alphabets and communicate them appriotely. I need a way to word it better. And really as for why other than it was the work of creativity. I can only say because. *Need to work on this one* *Now staff sergeants are not instantly promoted, rather lower ranks to staff sergeant. Now this is when you need a commander. For example if you see this airman who is shooting better and performing better in training and exhibits much higher intelligence and leadership abilities than a staff sergeant who would you want commanding your cell? You are only getting a jump in rank unless you really show you are more skilled, better suited for command, and more experienced. I realize this probably didn't do a spot on job of explaning everything. So..yeah. I am not trying to break canon. Please inquire further for better explanation. Foxtrot12 04:31, November 15, 2010 (UTC) One: I am not avoiding points. I am terrible at explanations. In response in the clearest way I can think of. The air force was chosen as it was the most untapped. This could not be a marine corps branch now could it? The air force was chosen as it had no canon special forces that this article would contradict. Now this is subject to change the moment I can think of another place to stick them in. The weapons. One the exile I am not seeing the m16. I give you the carrying handle though it's not worth the fight. I will look into replacement. Now they are exclusive because if they are better than they should be ingame should they not? If my rifle is one hundred times better than the MA5 then why is the MA5 used? As well remember costs. If you have a superior weapon that is costly who would you issue it to? Infantry or special forces? I am sure the UNSC would have loved to augment every marine and give them some MJOLNIR armor but due to prices and reasonability they could not. Savy? Phonetics. I really can only explain it with creativity and am working up a solution it took some time to think it up and I am not sure about throwing it away. I know how it works and it is partially a code. For instance in MW2 the phonetic spelling of the White House was Whiskey Hotel. But Whiskey Hotel could refer to anything it could mean any two word combination whose words began with W and H. I am thinking making a section of known cell callsigns and throwing the phonetics in there would work. And as for chain of command. When it takes nearly a year to train these people you want to make sure you have a good commander who knows what he is doing. That is why they pick their cell mates. Now if the airman is a better fighter and leader, if he is looked up to more and in drills and training scenarios, which are sometimes trainees being deployed in recreations of real missions with dummy grenades and stun rounds then he deserves command in my opionion. Some of those operations include the normandy landings, operations in the tet offensive, operations in the war on terror, counter innie operations, and later successful operations against the covies. Centurion training gives you experience in multiple wars. Does this help anything? Foxtrot12 05:52, November 15, 2010 (UTC) Being a former serviceman of the Republic of Korea Army and having numerous friends, colleagues, and relatives in enlisted and commissioned service with numerous armed forces worldwide, allow me to elaborate on why your "Centurions" don't fit/belong as a UNSCAF unit: the duties of an Air Force are, predominantly, providing air support for ground personnel. Ground-based special operations are left in the capable hands of both Army and Marine SOF groups, whose branches are geared specifically for ground combat. Thusly, the duties of Air Force special operations forces are geared specifically toward supporting the respective Air Force's operations in the region. For example, Forward Air Controllers, who are responsible for guiding Close Air Support (CAS) (preventing friendly fire and ensuring higher enemy casualties), Combat Weathermen (they do go by other names, depending on the nation), who are tasked with relaying accurate local meteorological information to local commanders in order to optimise efficient use of aircraft, and Tactical Air Controllers, who advise commanding officers of units from other branches of service (e.g. Army or Marines) on the most effective application of air power, among others. Your "Centurions" fill roles that are already filled by Army and Marine SOF units, and that do not have any correlation with the Air Force's duties as a branch of service. As for weapons: considering the "Exile 2-3 Carbine" clearly utilises 21st century firearm components, it is in violation of the ""WW2Halo" policy: specifically, that no pieces of equipment dating back to the 21st Century and earlier may be recycled as "UNSC military equipment." On the other note of group-specific weaponry: the point isn't that your "more effective rifle" should be issued to frontline infantry: it's that your unit wouldn't have its own private arsenal in the first place. ODSTs and SPARTANs, the virtual top-tier operators of the UNSC Defence Force, clearly utilise weaponry common with, or modified from, existing standard-issue firearms. The UNSC's weaponry is effective as it is, and it's much more economical to modify existing weaponry for use by special operations forces (real life example being the Mk. 14 Mod 0 EBR, modified from the M14, or the OC-14 "Groza", modified from the AK-74u, with a Halo-universe example being the M7S, modified from the M7) than to create new firearms altogether. On to phonetics: the NATO Phonetic Alphabet is in no way used for hiding information: there are set codes utilised by national militaries for that purpose. The NATO Phonetic Alphabet, rather, is used solely and specifically to clearly represent letters of the English alphabet when speaking over a radio. Where "B" could be mistaken for "P" or "D", "Bravo" allows individuals communicating over the radio to clearly state which letter they mean. That being said, giving your unit an entirely separate phonetic code makes little sense, as (as Ajax put it), all it would do is cause confusion amongst individuals communicating with operators of your Centurion group. Now, the issue with rank. Individuals wouldn't simply be promoted: keep in mind that military ranking systems are based on length of service and personal skill. Simply put, a higher ranking enlistedman will almost undoubtedly be a better soldier, given that rank requirements do include personal performance. You could easily circumvent this issue by simply making a rank requirement for your "cell commanders". On a sidenote, keep in mind that the UNSC Air Force does have its own ranking system: Lieutenant Commander is a naval rank, and there are two grades of Lieutenant: first and second. Simply fix the issues, and the tags will be removed. OK I have gone other this shit. They can not be marine corps or any such shit as branches like the marine corps already have special forces. Phonetics a bad fucking call on my part. Weaponry. I'm still not seeing it and god-forbid I would like to actually write something and customize my own shit and their weapons they used and make them exclusive to give a reason why no one else used them. Promotions. If a lower rank is superior to a higher rank in ability and everything then they should lead. This is a one in seven thousand chance of happening. In the end can someone just slap a delete template on the page and make everyone happy? Foxtrot12 13:37, November 15, 2010 (UTC) Yeah I gotta agree that was a bit uncalled for. I feel mainly that I was not being understood. And acted brash. I know the policies I have reviewed them. Now to end the note. They were air force because that was the only sensible place to stick a special forces. If I made them marine corps it would lack sense as they have special forces, the odsts so no need for them. Now all day I have been pondering solutions I am not angry due to need to change I am angry as I feel my point is not being understood. As for weapons. It is needed to create my own for a reason. Look at the operating dates. Was the MA5B in operation in 2500? Be aware that some weapons will need to be made as we have no clue what was in use and a million other people have made guns with no appearances in canon. I would say I retain the same right. Now we can do this all fucking day but I don't think we are going to ever reach a point of understanding ourselves. I think that is a correct statement. So with the ideas I have pondered over allow me to see what I can do and then move on from there instead of talking about it let's get shit done. Savy? Can we reach an accord there?Foxtrot12 21:24, November 15, 2010 (UTC) Namespace For #As per NCF policy. #As per above and the fact that the author hasn't been here since last year --RichardRHunt (talk) ( ) 16:05, February 27, 2011 (UTC) Against